Talk:Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Worth waiting a bit for the paper to be published and for the reclassification to be generally accepted. --rgpk (comment) 17:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum → Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum — A recently accepted study demonstrates the reclassification of Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum into the genus Ophiognomonia. Broders KD, Boland GJ, Reclassification of the butternut canker fungus, Sirococcus clavigignentijuglandacearum, into the genus Ophiognomonia, Fungal Biology (2010), doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2010.10.007[1]. 131.104.139.148 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Note that the URL above is to a corrected proof of a peer-reviewed paper not yet published in the Journal, and won't work once it is dead tree published. But the paper is already citeable, I think as Broders K. D. and Bolanda G. J., Reclassification of the butternut canker fungus, Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum, into the genus Ophiognomonia, Fungal Biology (2010) but may not have the bibliographical details quite right. Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME as the current name gets many more google hits. Additionally there is little evidence that the new name is commonly supported by the scientific community - one unpublished article such as this is hardly conclusive especially in a field such as this where different papers and methodologies will often support a different placement in the tree and so a different name. If the new name becomes accepted in the scientific community then I'd support such a move. Dpmuk (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.